Romney and Paul on top in New Hampshire…Four more years of Obama ahead?

Yeah, I know it’s only New Hampshire. We all knew Romney was going to take that state. But good grief, imagine if the choice was between these two?

Wow! What a nightmare.

But hey, at least we have Santorum way back there, and don’t forget about Perry!

Sigh…

Mitt Romney cruised to a solid victory in the New Hampshire primary Tuesday night, picking up steam from his first-place finish in the lead-off Iowa caucuses and firmly establishing himself as the man to beat for the Republican presidential nomination.

“Tonight we made history,” Romney told cheering supporters before pivoting to a stinging denunciation of President Barack Obama. “The middle class has been crushed … our debt is too high and our opportunities too few,” he declared – ignoring the rivals who had been assailing him for weeks and making clear he intends to be viewed as the party’s nominee in waiting after only two contests.

His Republican rivals said otherwise, looking ahead to South Carolina on Jan. 21 as the place to stop the former Massachusetts governor. Already, several contenders and committees supporting them had put down heavy money to reserve time for television advertising there.

Even so, the order of finish – Ron Paul second, followed by Jon Huntsman, with Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum trailing – scrambled the field and prolonged the increasingly desperate competition to emerge as the true conservative rival to Romney.

To cap off this “terrific” night we have the crazy uncle telling everyone to get the hell off of his property:

Rep. Ron Paul’s campaign called on the rest of the Republican field to drop out of the race and unite behind him in order to defeat Mitt Romney.

“We urge Ron Paul’s opponents who have been unsuccessfully trying to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney to unite by getting out of the race and uniting behind Paul’s candidacy,” campaign chair Jesse Benton said in a statement.

And in the end, with this field of candidates, it sure looks like Romney will be nominated, and I couldn’t agree more with Rush, Sarah and Donna Brazile on this….he will have a tough time against Obama:

110 Responses to “Romney and Paul on top in New Hampshire…Four more years of Obama ahead?”

anticsrocks

If I am wrong, I will gladly admit it, but I don’t think I am. I don’t even know the source who made this claim in the first place, and it might have been misquoted. I can see him asking any of the candidates, if they were to decide to drop out on their own, to back him, but not to tell them to drop out in order to back him. It’s not what he’s about.

You are right, it isn’t that big of a deal. However I have been trashed, called names, had ad hominem attack after ad hominem attack hurled at me from Ron Paul supporters when I have deigned to ask questions they do not like. So in this case, I guess I just want to be stubborn and make it a bit bigger deal than it might or might not be.

This link, if you will kindly click on it, will take you to http://www.ronpaul2012.com – which as you know is his OFFICIAL CAMPAIGN WEBSITE. It is a press release on his website that asks, and I quote – “Ron Paul’s opponents who have been unsuccessfully trying to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney to unite by getting out of the race and uniting behind Paul’s candidacy.” – end quote. That is the SECOND LINE OF THE PRESS RELEASE.

Now I am hoping that you are a different brand of Ron Paul supporter, and you will keep your word and, as you put it, “gladly admit” that you are wrong on this. That dear Dr. Paul sanctions, approves of and has, through his campaign manager asked every GOP candidate except for Mitt Romney to drop out of the race and support his candidacy.

If you still think that he has no knowledge of this, that “it’s not what he is about,” then what does that say about a man who is such an ineffectual leader that he cannot even control what his campaign officially says to the press?

anticsrocks

ilovebeeswarzone

Nan G
hi,
on your 23, I think it is a great idea to want the REPUBLCAN choosin their CANDIDATES BY REAL REPUBLICANS, WITHOUT THE INFILTRATORES, MESSING UP THE RESULTS. FOR THE END GAME ONLY ON THEIR SIDES,
THERE should be a card holder with strick discipline demands to get the card,, with all the corruption you find, it should be a pre-requisite to ask for it and to show it to get in the polls and votes,
a card with secret code and tert that cannot be duplicate or hack, which every CONSERVATIVES KEEP ON THEM, EVEN BE GOOD TO ENCOURAGE BUSYNESS OF THEIR OWNS TOO. WHY NOT

just me 95

Wow, talk about embarrassing. Now who’s the one with a reading problem?
If someone knocks on your door and you call out, “Who’s there?!’ does that person get knives thrown at them for calling back, “Just me!’? Do you go on a rampage and start yelling at them for being so self-centered?
But, Mata, you really showed your true colors when you wrote the following

You’re a weird bird, “just me”….

After reading that I had to check if I was on Flopping Aces or entered Romper Room.
Weird bird? Like a loon, perhaps? aka crazy? Ahh, yes, I’m a firm believer in liberty and our founding principles and want our Constitution followed so I must be crazy.

You truly are unable to debate without name-calling and haughty slights.

How’s this then ‘Oh mirror, mirror’. How embarrassing for you that I didn’t misread anything in your screed. You used an idiot author to make your point about someone you don’t like. Wow. I’m soo not impressed.

you are dissing and demeaning Debusmann when he agrees with you, and your hero, Scheuer.

And again, how embarrassing for you to make an ass of yourself by insinuating that I should agree with Debusmann just because he agrees with Scheuer. You may find it satisfying to be praised by all and sundry regardless of their character, but I doesn’t work that way for me.

And please, stop playing Newt; I don’t need your history lessons. I am fully aware of what’s going on in the Middle East.

Speaking of ‘your boy’ Newt, I keep on finding out more and more about him and it really isn’t pretty.

Gingrich consistently claims far too much credit for conservative successes, especially in the Reagan years. As Mitt Romney noted in the debate last night, Reagan barely knew who Gingrich was. He was a back bencher.
The joke going around in the late 1980s was that the NRCC had a whole room full of file Cabinets, with every drawer in the room labeled “Newt’s ideas.” Well, every drawer but one. The drawer in the bottom corner of the dingiest file cabinet was labeled “Newt’s good ideas.”
As for his role in gaining the majority for the GOP in 1994, it was of course significant. I was there; I will always credit him for that. Alas, he claims TOO much credit. The Contract with America, for instance, was more the brainchild of Kerry Knott (Armey’s aid, who came up with the first version of it while on a weekend clear-his-mind getaway at Morton Blackwell’s country house) than anybody else. The insistence on passing welfare reform (rather than giving up on it after two vetoes and using it as a campaign issue instead) came from the bottom up, with folks like Santorum, John Kasich, Bill Archer, and Clay Shaw deserving more of the credit than Gingrich.
As for Appropriations, Bob Livingston went beyond what Newt even asked in pursuit of a balanced budget, and so did Kasich. But Gingrich almost ruined the whole thing by agreeing with Bill Thomas to include an unnecessary Medicare provision into the “shutdown” battle, thus giving fodder to Clinton and muddying the waters. Gingrich’s foot-in-mouth-itis clearly helped cost conservatives both in the PR department and in the 1996 presidential race; his conduct of the impeachment inquiry turned it, politically, into a major met minus instead of the net plus it should have been; and his utter capitulation on spending in the fall of 1998 (in order to buy off moderates for what turned out to be irrelevant demands for the actual shape of the impeachment inquiry) blew the lid off the spending progress made in the previous three years and set the scene for the Bush spendathon.

Yes, Mr Slavinski may have been a senior editor at the FRB Richmond, but his work at the Cato and Goldwater Institutes more than make up for it.

But if you really, really want to know the real Newt, I think this gem of an article complete with videos is an absolute must read. Now, I confess, I have no idea who authored it – I’ll let you, Mata, vet that – but nothing beats reading Newt’s own words to get to the heart and ‘cough cough’ soul of the beast man.

anticsrocks

That being said, you almost could be credited (almost) with making a case when you said:

After reading that I had to check if I was on Flopping Aces or entered Romper Room.

– and –

You truly are unable to debate without name-calling and haughty slights.

But then, two sentences later:

You used an idiot author to make your point about someone you don’t like. Wow. I’m soo not impressed.

LOL, look I ain’t taking sides here, as I said Mata is someone I greatly respect. Her knowledge of history and economics is exceptional. But let me say this, when you are trying to make a case that someone used ad hominem attacks and therefore was childish you ought not use a sentence with the phrase, “Wow. I’m soo not impressed.”

That’s kinda like Obama calling Bush unpatriotic for 4 trillion dollars in new debt in 8 years while he racks up near 6 trillion in less than half the time.

Or to put it another way, it is kinda like Joe Biden being upset that Mensa turned down his request for membership.

just me, I find it ironic you can get all up in arms about my replies to you. May I remind you that this entire conversation started out when you gave us the not-so-surprising revelation that Scheuer was supporting Ron Paul?

Well, of course he is… Scheuer shares RP’s “withdraw from the ME” mentality as the cure for the jihad war. Where Scheuer has a quandary is that he considered UBL a “rational” kind of guy who was actually waging the real war, not with combat, but our economy. Even Ron Paul, to my knowledge, didn’t consider UBL “rational”. But RP’s economic policies, *most* (not all) of which I like… as I’ve said over and over.. will do nothing to protect the US from an enemy who chooses to use our economy as a weapon.

When I came back and said that I was no fan of Scheuer… and for the same reasons I’m no fan of Ron Paul…what do you say?

Promote yourself much, Mata?

Following that “Romper Room” response… which you began… you then piled on with stating you thought my choice of Newt (the best meatball in the bunch, IMHO) was bad, that I didn’t vett the author of my source (which I had called an idiot), and that I had composed a “screed”.

And you have the chutzpah to morally declare that *I* can’t “debate without name-calling and haughty slights”.

LOL!

You began the insults, and since that happens quite often on FA, I didn’t have to look around to see if I was parked on the right URL. It’s also no surprise that when challenged… most especially the Ron Paul supporters… the insults tend to fly. Buck up, just me. If you start denigrating the conversation into personal insults, I assure you that I can play in the gutter as well as anyone. Not my favorite arena, but one has to become adept at even the low roads when talking politics.

So forgive me if I can’t feel guilty about your shock and horror when I mock you for your hypersensitivity, and play on the level of discourse that you, yourself, set.

BTW, if you want someone to be “inclined” to continue to read… and I always read links people with opposing views include… it would be nice if you actually provided one. But I find it hilarious that whoever the author was of the mystery article, that he was attempting to portray Newt as having very little to do with the Contract of America, and even tried to elevate a junior House member, Santorum’s, participation. (I suspect we know where that reporter’s endorsement lies…) Santorum was not a major player, but he was a supporting actor… as was over 300 House Republicans.

Part of the Contract was that House and Senate members were all going to present legislation within the first 100 days of the stated goals. Santorum was not one of them sponsoring a bill (he had just moved from the House to a first term Senator that year). As Speaker, most tend to stay out of the debates and floor votes while they hold that position. But only those most naive in political history would attempt to portray Newt as a bit player in the mid 90s politics. Like the man or not, you cannot be honest if you do not recognize his achievements.

As far as Newt goes, of course I know he’s not a perfect candidate. It’s the reason I’ve been holding out quite a long time before thinking about any of the candidates. For months I’ve not liked any of them with any passion. And that remains true today. That’s why I say we’re craving a steak, and the buffet is only offering us meatballs and hamburger. It is what it is.

Everyone picks who they think works for them better than the others. Out of the meatballs offered, my pick is Newt. I do that sans any particular passion… just resignation. We know who you like, and that’s fine. But we don’t need lectures about how you’re superior to the rest of us, who find too many things about RP too objectionable to support under *any* circumstance.